I'll be honest, I have next to zero knowledge on this topic so I'm going to save you from hearing my half-hashed opinion. I do agree with you though to some extent, despite myself, that education currently needs a serious reevaluation on whats important.

...but on to a question more pertinent to our discussion: when I train my telescope toward the heavens and perceive two stars in its field of vision, is it the telescope that counts those stars as two? — Leghorn

No, It is I who count two stars.

I haven't read any philosophical matter, but I'd think that theology is a good place to start.

Looking at philosophy in a historical context, or reading in historical order also might not be a bad idea.

Right. I'll admit I was a little flamboyant on the "temporary exile", but transparency was the initial goal.

It might be best to just let this one go. It seems anything but productive.

I've been hit by a thunderbolt, but can't seem to remember exactly what it felt like.

My most prominent memory of that time was listening to "What You Won't Do For Love" by Bobby Caldwell, for six months straight.

So materialist philosophers who deny the existence of intangibles are wrong. — god must be atheist

When materialist philosophers deny the existence of intangibles, I think they apply a subtle but albeit variabley important change of definition.

In my opinion there's two ways that we can describe non-existence:

1. Just zap it out of existence,

Or

2. Displace the variable outside of your mode of observation.

I think materialist philosophers don't intrinsically deny the existence of thought. After all, that would be against their own rules. It Just happen to be that the creation of thought is (probably) so incredibly complex, that they displace it out of their perception.

I have not. Not yet, at least.

Sometimes, girls just wanna feel the heat.

(of an intense and controversial debate.)

I agree. I don't particularly find the definition of concepts as individual things any bit useful either; I guess I just wouldn't know how to deny it.

In a practical sense, you're pretty correct.

My bad. One second.

Go with your gut.

But hobbits are part of a shared game, the rules of which, although set by Tolkien, are subject to modification; Hobbits are a communal exercise. — Banno

I find it hard to deny the privatization of individualistic, thought generated imagery.

I have a friend, who desperately wants a significant other. The only thing is he's not incredibly good looking, a little socially inept( in terms of social queues), not exactly the most intelligent guy on earth...etc.

Now not to be egotistical or anything, but girls flock to me like flies. I don't know exactly why, but it just happens to be that way.

This happens to be incredibly ironic, because I, the "magnet" have zero intention of getting a lover, and here I have a person close to me who acts like all of his problems could be solved if he just had someone who smelled nice, someone he could talk to, engage romantically, etc.

I don't know if enhanced qualities involve a sense of obligation, but they certainly involve a sense of guilt (at least in my experience).

Well, applying/teaching non-biased behavior is definitely a start. I would add that we need to identify conflict of interest when we talk about discussions, and if a conflict of interest appears within the interviewer/interviewee(anybody who's relaying information) they should be temporarily exiled from the topic. I wouldn't want someone defending a topic just because it makes him more money, I want someone to defend a topic because it's actually something he's invested in.

Trying to make this conversation a little more constructive; not to say that anything that was mentioned here was false:

How do you think we could improve/sustain knowledge translation so that it's relayed in a simple, non-biased manner?

Bottom line, we are equal under the sun, but we exist in very different circumstances. The difference in circumstances will improve the survival of some, but not all. Our children need stability, security, and very good schools, and unfortunately, that is not our reality so some will be pushed out of mainstream society and will experience greater threats to their lives and sanity. — Athena

I'd agree with you that it becomes increasingly difficult to assess equality when we live in generically different scenarios. I guess it depends on whether you look at humanity via a macro or micro lens.

Well, I suggest that a blind man could still identify a set of things in relation to his other senses. For example, an identical sensation, or an identical sound.

Yet, if the blind man does not have these capacities to translate any sort of stimulus into something physically comprehensible, then he must be reliant on the mind. And if you are reliant on the mind, you cannot/could not verify the existence of things, for existence does not exist within thought (application of).

Therefore I would conclude that a man unable to perceive via any physical sense, could not assess a set of things. Only a set of things that would have no relation to our practical world.

I see...And you suggest that hidden placeholders and variable realties in our formulas result in leaky abstractions, because they fail to assess the reality beneath?

To be honest, you're probably not wrong. Im sure if you were to include a multitude of precise variables in whatever formula, you'd get a more accurate response, or at the very least avoid a mutation of some sort. However, sometimes it's just more useful for the truth to have mutations; to be wrong in some cases, and right in others.

Unless you're making a rocket ship.

Well, depends on how you look at it.

I feel like Goldilocks is a good example of this sort of theoretical application to assert truths:

use knowledge in a negative or positive extremity (i.e all the time or none of the time) and it's distasteful, but apply a nugget of wisdom moderately, and it can help clarify a lot of things.

My conclusion: Pessimism does not entail unhappiness; neither optimism, happiness. — Alkis Piskas

Well now thats a hot take if I've ever seen one.

Years ago, there was a theory of reality called "String theory" that used upwards of 10 dimensions. Many people thought the idea of "dimension" meant something like you're taught in school. 2 dimensions is a plane, 3 dimensions Is a plane of planes, and the fourth dimension is time. — Philosophim

It's a pretty common misconception that the fourth dimension is time. The way dimensions work is that you start with one dimension(a line) and move upwards, adding the dimension you did before it. So for example the second dimension is just two one dimensions, and the third dimension is just the second one infinitely stacked on itself. So what would be the fourth dimension then? Well, here comes the problem. You can only observe a dimension if you perceive in the dimension before it(e.g we live in a 3d world but see things in 2d)so to accurately tell what the 4th dimension is, we would need to perceive in 3d, which is absolutely impossible for us, even in terms of abstractions. So the fact that string theory uses placeholders for spatially relevant dimensions isn't wrong at all I dont think, its kind of like saying "we know it's out there, we just dont know what it looks like."

heres an example of a fourth dimensional object:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

I'd say that our mode of natural perception; the eyes, could very well perceive a set of things.

By means the telescope, I would think.

Fight what? I’m already not a part of any collective. No one is. The error is in believing you are a part of anything of the sort. — NOS4A2

The Childs privilege...

I would agree that for some things, its almost simpler to view it in a non-deterministic setting.

Hmm...I think this is a really difficult question, with a lot of different sides, and maybe no good one answer. Again, I don't have a lot of info on the topic, so I'm just going to relate my thoughts on what I've heard on the radio and whatnot.

I think its important to note that the loss of importance of family comes from a lot of different sectors.

For example gender dysphoria: A rising mental condition that makes some girls physically feel that they belong more in a guys body. I don't suppose that they would be particularly receptive to oxytocin, or stimulation via maternal instinct if they felt more physically inclined to be a man. So perhaps if we could conclude that a variant expression of oxytocin exists within woman in general, it definitely would not be hard to believe that some women just feel less inclined/binded to maternal instincts like other girls would be.

Theres also scientific advancement. I think were getting to a point where now you can actually choose the eye colour of your child, hair colour, specific immunities against certain disabilities etc... we may eventually come to a point where its more cost effective to just make a baby in a lab, then go through the natural process.

Overall ignorance might be a point too. Since celibacy is gaining traction, some people don't know exactly how powerful the sentiments are after having a kid. How it completely takes over your life.
They might just view the practical/physical aspects of it, and go, "meh, not for me. Costs too much."

Finally there's just the fact that there is too many people on earth! I think men are less incentivized to have babies when they know they might contribute to the overpopulation of earth.

Now does/would all this contribute to the devaluation of a woman?

Well depends on how you would define one. I think gender is a really complicated issue right now in terms of definition, and in my belief I think it might be better to restate the question to how can we sustain the individual, who NEEDS maternal instinct to validate themselves? If one day family is out of the picture, how can we still stay connected?

Do these advancements destroy family fidelity?

Well yeah. Now you have to define yourself by yourself, whether you want to or not.

Right.

Yes, I am asking if the change in a woman's social responsibility is for the better or worse. Now like T Clark, I have my concerns about saying what is on my mind but if I don't, this thread is pointless. — Athena

Well, I'll warrant I don't have much knowledge on this topic, but i'll give it a shot.

my general idea is that its not necessarily only a woman's social responsibility that has altered; I would say that the average idea of "family" has changed, or in any case has lost a veritable amount of importance. Human artificial insemination, rising rates of sterilization amongst men, I think theres even a human clone in china somewhere... not sure, but it would seem that the word family is definitely decreasing in value. Personally, I wouldn't be able to say whether its for the better or for the worse, seeing that my belief around family is obviously biased.

Who knows? Maybe in the future we'll see family as a terrible and archaic form of human development. Only time will tell I guess.

Well, according to our previous agreement that deemed perception to be the how or the why of reality, if you could somehow demonstrate that it is possible to be perceived with a tool, I would be more inclined to agree that "good" and the "better" exist.

I would agree.

I don't believe so... You can either be omnipotent, perceiving all without aid, or perceive all with aid...

Yeah I would say that no there is not a separate means of detection.

Well, one could consider the abstract or the realm of thought to be a mode of detection, but it is only a different mode of detection as long as it denies the possibility of sensory application. In other words, as long as it gives the possibility of a tool to be made to allow for sensory detection, it would fall under the category of aided detection.

So for example, though it is scarcely conceivable that anyone could ever journey to the center of the earth, or even send a probe there, we know that its center exists, and is detectable, even though we cannot detect it. — Leghorn

Well, by our previous agreement we had stated that as long as you had a device to aid your natural perception, which is to instate that everything is perceivable as long as you have the right tool, it would exist if only we could verify it's detectability.

If our plethora of tools could not ascertain the detectability of the middle of the earth, then it would not exist: e.g, if mathematics had failed to prove that there is a center to the universe, then by its blatant imperceptibility it would be hard to imagine its existence.

I would agree.

undetectable to whom? To us? Then I would say no, provided that echo location exists; even if we cannot detect it(naturally).

Yeah go ahead. I withdraw my statement!

Is the limitations on travel and gathering not state control?
— NOS4A2

No, it is not. There is, at least in the U.S., a Constitutional Right to travel. But you may have to walk if you don't want to get a driver's license and if you want to use our roads. See the difference? No? I didn't think so. — James Riley

Why would you want to know someone’s private health details? — NOS4A2

:lol:

Are you vaccinated?

Proofs in the pudding.

It is nonsensical because one can occupy all categories at once. If someone makes his own and another’s situation worse with one act and better with the next, he is, accordingly, both stupid and intelligent. — NOS4A2

I dont find why thats nonsensical. I think although we dont like to admit it, we've all been capable of great harm or great good at some point in our lives. I think his main point was that we had to moderate our stupidity-let it flow softly in some areas, rather than power hosing your way through.